I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in BAHAROV v. UKRAINE.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-05-05
- Communication date: 2019-11-28
- Application number(s): 28982/19
- Country: UKR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 8, 8-1
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.59389
- Prediction: No violation
Inconsistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Daniel Krastov Baharov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and permanently lives in New York, USA.
He is represented before the Court by Mr D.S.
Krugovyy, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2008 the applicant married Ms B., a US and Ukrainian national.
The couple lived in the USA.
On 27 January 2010 their son, D. was born.
On 11 February 2014 the couple divorced.
On 15 May 2014 the applicant and B. concluded a contract determining the conditions for parenting the child.
On 7 June 2016 the applicant gave B. permission to take the child from the USA to Turkey for holidays until 31 August 2016.
On 19 July 2016 B. and D. moved from Turkey to Ukraine and have stayed there since then.
In October 2016 the applicant initiated a procedure under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (the Hague Convention) for the return of D. from Ukraine to the USA.
On 12 April 2017 the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice, acting in the interests of the applicant, lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv for the return of D. to the USA.
On 29 May 2017 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv dismissed the claim, finding that there had been reasons under the Hague Convention to refuse the return of the child to the USA.
On 30 August 2017 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court that had rejected the applicant’s claim.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed as unfounded by the Supreme Court on 29 November 2018.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the child return proceedings had been excessively long.
Judgment
FIRST SECTIONCASE OF ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 4080/21 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 May 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Értékszállítási és Őrzésvédelmi Dolgozók Szakszervezete and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President, Raffaele Sabato, Davor Derenčinović, judges,and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8. In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/registration
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
4080/21
17/12/2020
ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE
1993
Barbalics István
Budapest
16/01/2007
pending
More than 15 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
14520/21
08/03/2021
Danica OSZTOICS
1971
13/01/2009
09/09/2020
11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
7,800
19305/21
31/03/2021
Domonkos MÁTÉ
1985
26/06/2017
13/10/2021
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
21280/21
07/04/2021
Augustin SILAGHI
1982
07/05/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,600
38923/21
26/07/2021
Tibor KAPÁS
1963
Szabó Gábor
Göd
20/04/2013
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,500
44277/21
31/08/2021
Tamás Attila SÖRLEI
1955
Cech András
Budapest
10/06/2011
29/04/2021
9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 4080/21 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 May 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Értékszállítási és Őrzésvédelmi Dolgozók Szakszervezete and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President, Raffaele Sabato, Davor Derenčinović, judges,and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8. In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/registration
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
4080/21
17/12/2020
ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE
1993
Barbalics István
Budapest
16/01/2007
pending
More than 15 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
14520/21
08/03/2021
Danica OSZTOICS
1971
13/01/2009
09/09/2020
11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
7,800
19305/21
31/03/2021
Domonkos MÁTÉ
1985
26/06/2017
13/10/2021
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
21280/21
07/04/2021
Augustin SILAGHI
1982
07/05/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,600
38923/21
26/07/2021
Tibor KAPÁS
1963
Szabó Gábor
Göd
20/04/2013
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,500
44277/21
31/08/2021
Tamás Attila SÖRLEI
1955
Cech András
Budapest
10/06/2011
29/04/2021
9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,500
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/registration
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
4080/21
17/12/2020
ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE
1993
Barbalics István
Budapest
16/01/2007
pending
More than 15 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
14520/21
08/03/2021
Danica OSZTOICS
1971
13/01/2009
09/09/2020
11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
7,800
19305/21
31/03/2021
Domonkos MÁTÉ
1985
26/06/2017
13/10/2021
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
21280/21
07/04/2021
Augustin SILAGHI
1982
07/05/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,600
38923/21
26/07/2021
Tibor KAPÁS
1963
Szabó Gábor
Göd
20/04/2013
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,500
44277/21
31/08/2021
Tamás Attila SÖRLEI
1955
Cech András
Budapest
10/06/2011
29/04/2021
9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.